I record coincidences that occur to me once and awhile here...

Like yesterday driving by looking at a billboard that had only one word on it: "DEPENDABILITY" just as that word was announced on the radio regarding another vehicle... Not that big of a coincidence, I know, but

A couple of days earlier I had been reading a book on WW2 by Jeffrey Shaara called "No Less Than Victory" that had commented on leading Nazi Martin Bormann being rumored to have been in Argentina until it his bones were found in Germany...and the same day hearing that fact on a book my wife was listening to on audio tape while she exercised (called "The Dead Sea Cipher" by Elizabeth Peters).

Just one of those coincidences.
I had never heard of the matter before.

Last night I went to a lecture given by David Berlinski at a nearby college (he is a respected opponent of Richard Dawkins). Many things swirled in my head during his talk and I came loaded for bear with quotes from Robert Shapiro and Leonard Susskind (see below). In the end, I simply asked

"Do YOU believe we can know truth?"

He answered "Sure..." and then spoke about the earth being round and that the Higgs boson (He pronounced it "Heggs") might pop up at Fermi Lab.

I didn't get it. But my impression was that his own existence hung unrealized between belief and unbelief (and perhaps HAS to in order to maintain his respectability and his niche). He appeared to me to be a learned and unsatisfied man.

The students (it was a standing-room only crowd) afterwards seemed totally pumped up by his talk, although it left me flat. Besides the obvious and expected references to the Big Bang, the "just so" universe, and the conundrum regarding the origin of life, he made two points that he himself found personally intriguing:

1. That we have stumbled upon scientific discoveries almost as though they were revelatory gifts rather than fruits of directed study.

2. That a famous mathematician claims that everything can be summed up in one Act —and that of simple counting. And who would have been counting "1...2...3..." at the genesis of the universe?

Not bad.

Here were the quotes I had all ready to go from Shapiro and Susskind (and good ones, considering Berlinski addressed both the origin of the cosmos and the origin of life within the same framework of challenge:)

From Origins by Robert Shapiro (origin of life scientist)

Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical experiments run to discover a probable origin for life have failed unequivocally. Further, new geological evidence may indicate a sudden appearance of life on the earth. Finally, we may have explored the universe and found no trace of life, or processes leading to life, elsewhere. In such a case, some scientists might choose to turn to religion for an answer. Others, however, myself included, would attempt to sort out the surviving less probable scientific explanations in the hope of selecting one that was still more likely than the remainder. (p. 130, 1986...an older book, but nothing's changed as far as I know.)

From an interview with the New Scientist by Leonard Susskind (cosmic string theorist) in response to the question: "If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?"

I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID [Intelligent Design] critics. One might arge that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge as faith-based as ID.  (New Scientist. Dec 17 2005)

Berlinski's own prevarication might be viewed beneficial only for the pause it gave to those who assume materialism is scientifically a done deal. Perhaps it also opened the door for some to consider, at least, that those who hold belief in a Creator should not be dismissed out-of-hand as benighted souls. (Of course, if they are right, it is they themselves who might be judged so...which is another side of things altogether.)

 

Suggested Reading from my perspective:

Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton

Show Me God by Fred Heeren (don't be put off by the title, its a great intro to developments in cosmology, especially since Einstein, and explains in layman's terms concepts of quantum mechanics. Heeren also includes interviews he has conducted with genuine scientific luminaries in the field.)

 

(You know how it is on Facebook...MY NAME) is wondering whether some news agencies shall be considered "more equal" than others by the White House. (Or is that Animal House?)

I followed this with the first comment:

I agree with what you say Obama should do (deconstruct or debate them on specific points if they have misrepresented FACTS). The question to me has to do with seeking to delegimatize the NEWS/journalistic aspect of this organization rather than the EDITORIAL slant. Many news organizations will back either Republican or Democratic candidates, for instance. I admit to being held prisoner by my suspicions (being more apt to back those whose beliefs stem from "natural law") Much of politics is based in suspicion, it seems. I find it really scary that our administrative branch would seek to undermine the legitimacy of the NEWS section of an organization in addition to the editorial section. Will they go after Christian news services next, since Christian news services report on events of interest to Christians?

I don't watch Fox, but I certainly do believe we are under the deluge of a worldview that only Fox seems to hold up to any real criticism. For that reason alone, as far as I am aware, has Obama singled them out. Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and Shawn Hannity might really be off-the-wall, but they have the right to have that podium. I think people can determine between diatribe and factual reporting. What the White House is doing really does smack of Animal House to me. Silence the opposition in the name of... what? That they get their talking points from the GOP? So what? What if those talking points have validity, and Fox is the only venue open to them among the vast majority of journalists who, according to many polls, characterize themselves liberal on most issues? If Obama succeeds in driving advertisers away and marginalizing Fox, what will he have accomplished in terms of helping America maintain its pluralism?

I guess I have come to believe that the plea "let's all just get along" is simply a cover-up for "let's just lie down and let the person who wants to take over just do it". There always have to be some who are crying "foul" at the ruling party, or else America ceases to be. What was true for George Bush should be just as true for Barak Obama. Was there any lack of invective for George Bush? You may say, "Well earned". But for Obama, it may be just as well-earned (for all I know). But even if it isn't, you allow the process of investigation uncover the fraud (of reporting, etc.). Its not like there aren't enough liberal agencies out there watching Fox already. Anyway... enough from me. I appreciate your view and I agree with your suggestion.

I do believe the thing that comes across in Congress that is so admirable is that people on opposite sides of the aisle are able to maintain real friendships and hold one another in full respect for doing what they do out of love for their country...